5 ms·

A representative democracy, which is what we have, is a good middle ground. If the governor had campaigned on gutting the university in particular to achieve h

A representative democracy, which is what we have, is a good middle ground. If the governor had campaigned on gutting the university in particular to achieve his goal, rather than on a vague promise of "more $" I might be more inclined to agree with you. As it is I think the responsible thing to do is for the legislature to override him on this if possible until the next election.

magduf 7y ago
How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? Create it out of thin air? The voters got exactly what they voted for, and most likely they voted for legislators with the same views as the governor. You're right though: it is a pretty good middle ground. It results in a state/nation that operates more or less according to the wishes of its citizens. The citizens of Alaska want bigger oil dividends and don't care about university education, so that's exactly what they're getting. Of course, this doesn't mean the citizens are getting what's best for them, but they're getting what they think is best, and if that means disaster for them in the future, it's their own fault.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? They probably had no coherent picture of how that would happen, specific benefits with vague sacrifices is a pretty standard approach to political messaging.
  - magduf 7y ago
    Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this. They have no one to blame but themselves. Remember, we're adults now, we aren't children in a playground where we can call for adults to set things right when we screw up. The voters have the ultimate power to choose who runs the government, so the results are their own responsibility.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this Perhaps, but “X was responsible for understanding that this would be the consequence” and “X was aware that this would be the consequence and actively preferred it” are very different claims.
      - magduf 7y ago
        I never claimed that all voters (for that candidate at least) would know beforehand exactly what actions s/he would take once in office. But it is their responsibility to know what they're voting for, and if they're stupid enough to believe vague or impossible campaign promises, that's entirely on them.

magduf 7y ago

How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? Create it out of thin air? The voters got exactly what they voted for, and most likely they voted for legislators with the same views as the governor. You're right though: it is a pretty good middle ground. It results in a state/nation that operates more or less according to the wishes of its citizens. The citizens of Alaska want bigger oil dividends and don't care about university education, so that's exactly what they're getting. Of course, this doesn't mean the citizens are getting what's best for them, but they're getting what they think is best, and if that means disaster for them in the future, it's their own fault.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? They probably had no coherent picture of how that would happen, specific benefits with vague sacrifices is a pretty standard approach to political messaging.
- magduf 7y ago
  Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this. They have no one to blame but themselves. Remember, we're adults now, we aren't children in a playground where we can call for adults to set things right when we screw up. The voters have the ultimate power to choose who runs the government, so the results are their own responsibility.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this Perhaps, but “X was responsible for understanding that this would be the consequence” and “X was aware that this would be the consequence and actively preferred it” are very different claims.
    - magduf 7y ago
      I never claimed that all voters (for that candidate at least) would know beforehand exactly what actions s/he would take once in office. But it is their responsibility to know what they're voting for, and if they're stupid enough to believe vague or impossible campaign promises, that's entirely on them.